The Supreme Court바카라s five-judge bench, which was headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, based its Ayodhya judgment on three factors 바카라 physical evidence (archaeology), social and religious practices, and indirect issues of faith and beliefs. (Catch all live updates on the Ayodhya verdict by Supreme Court here)
On this basis, it said that Ram Lalla (the infant Lord Ram) was the title holder of the disputed area, the inner and outer courtyards of which comprise a mere 1,500 square yards. The Hindus showed a more exclusive, continued (particularly for the outer courtyard that has the Ram Chabutra), and uninterrupted rights over it, compared to the Muslims, over centuries. It said the archaeological evidence was not conclusive.
In its long order, the court said that the deity Ram Lalla is a juristic entity, which went beyond legal persons and human nature. This is 바카라recognition바카라 that an object or corpus has certain rights and duties. This is true of a corporation, which is the 바카라most widely recognised artificial legal person바카라.
More than a century ago, the courts (British ones) recognised the legal personality of the Hindu idols (and Gods). This was done, the apex court said, for two reasons. The first was to guard against the 바카라real possibility of maladministration by the shebaits (managers of the places of worship)바카라 over the land, donations, and other endowments that were owned and received by places of worship.
The second was to intervene when there were threats that 바카라access or other religious benefits would be denied to the public, particularly the devotees바카라.
According to unanimous decision of the CJI-led Constitution Bench, 바카라it was a legal innovation necessitated by historical circumstances, the gap in the existing law and by consideration of convenience.바카라 In addition, there is a public interest to protect the properties that were endowed by the devotees to religious places.
Thus, the law 바카라confers legal personality on this pious purpose바카라, the judgement stated. The idols are 바카라looked upon바카라 as the entities on in which the respective properties vest. The idol is legally recognised as an embodiment of the pious or benevolent purposes.
In the Ayodhya case, Ram Lalla, who was the first plaintiff in Suit No. 5, which was clubbed with the others, was the 바카라object of worship for several hundred years바카라. In addition, his 바카라legal personality is not dependent on the continued existence of the idol바카라.
Thus, the Court recognised Lord Ram바카라s legal personality. The Court concluded that the Suit No. 5 was 바카라maintainable바카라, i.e, Ram Lalla held the title over the 2.77 acres of disputed area .
On the basis of social and religious practices, the bench said that the inner and outer courtyards need to be considered as a 바카라composite whole바카라. If this is done, the evidence 바카라in respect of possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims바카라.
In the case of the outer courtyard, the Hindu worship in the area 바카라continued unimpeded바카라 despite the grill-brick wall that was built by the British in 1857 to separate the two areas.
In 1857, the British allowed Muslims to pray in the inner courtyard, and the Hindus in the outer one. However, the evidence in front of the Supreme Court established that the Hindus worshipped in the inner courtyard prior to the annexation of Oudh (the Awadh region), which included Ayodhya, in 1857.
In comparison, the court said, the Muslims 바카라offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction (of the mosque) in the sixteenth century바카라.
The Court, therefore, asked the government, which acquired the disputed area and the adjoining land in 1993, to transfer the area to a trust within three months. The trust바카라s responsibility will be to manage the disputed area, and think of a plan to build a Ram temple on it.
But there was evidence that the Muslims regularly offered namaz in the inner structure between 1857 and 1949, and the last one was on December 16, 1949. The Muslims바카라 exclusion of the worship and possession of the inner courtyard 바카라took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949, when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols바카라.
This was not because of 바카라any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship바카라, the judgment said.
On December 6, 1992, the mosque structure was brought down in a 바카라egregious violation of the rule of law", and the Muslims were 바카라wrongly deprived of a mosque바카라 that was constructed 450 years ago.
So, the court decided that the Muslims need to be given five acres of land in a prominent area in Ayodhya to build a mosque. The area would be chosen by either the central or state (Uttar Pradesh) government, and the Sunni Waqf Board would have the right to build on it.
When it came to the conclusion of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that there was an underlying Hindu temple structure underneath the demolished mosque, the court added several caveats.
One, the ASI failed to provide the reason for the destruction of the 바카라pre-existing structure바카라, and whether it was demolished to build a mosque. Two, the underground structure dates to the twelfth century, and there is a 바카라time gap of about four centuries바카라 between its date and the construction of the mosque. The ASI has given no evidence to explain what happened in the intervening period, the court said.
Finally, the ASI couldn바카라t prove that the remnants of the Hindu underlying structure were used to build the mosque. 바카라The pillars that were used in the construction of the mosque were black Kasauti stone pillars. ASI has found no evidence to show that these Kasauti pillars are relatable to the underlying pillar bases found during the course of excavations바카라, said the apex court.
